[ RadSafe ] Re: Doyle and Ryan Gulf war reproductive health paper

[Steven Dapra]

Feb. 8, 2007

         (This is a reiteration of my Feb. 3 posting here.  James:  stop 
barking about uranium combustion products and answer my questions.)


         On Feb. 3, James Salsman (JS) wrote:

"The Doyle and Ryan paper at http://www.bovik.org/du/DoyleRyan2006.pdf 
describes Dr. Kang's report of a 180% increase in birth defects in the 
children of female February, 1991 Gulf War veterans as 'modest' on page 574.

"Are there any other descriptions in the literature or popular press where 
a near-tripling of a serious medical condition is referred to 'modest'?

"I have a several-page letter from Charles Miller of the NRC where he tries 
to defend that characterization at length, but repeatedly implies 
throughout that the increase reported by Dr. Kang was described by Doyle 
and Ryan as 'moderate' instead of modest. You can probably find the letter 
on the NRC's ADAMS document management system from their web site."

About paragraph one:

         This is actually a Doyle et al. paper.  It has three authors.

         On page 574, about one-fourth of the way down the page, Doyle et 
al. write, "Two surveys stand out as being particularly large: one from the 
USA (Kang et al. 2001) and the other from the UK (Doyle et al. 2004).  Both 
reported some evidence of a modest increase in risk of birth defect for 
male veterans' offspring born after the war, although cautious 
interpretations were offered because of concern about reporting bias."

         I have read the Kang et al. (2001) paper, and nowhere in it does 
there appear to be the figures "180%" or "220%".  Therefore I am assuming 
(note the qualifier) that you, JS, have derived these two percentages from 
something in the Kang et al. (2001) study.  If you have derived them, 
please give the figures that form the basis for your derivation, and the 
page numbers and columns where you find them.  What are the calculations 
you performed to arrive at the percentages of 180% and 220%?  Show your 
work.  Please also justify your calculations --- that is, explain the line 
of reasoning you used to warrant making these calculations.  [If "180%" and 
"220%" appear in Kang et al. (2001) please give the page numbers and 
columns where they appear.]

About paragraph two:

         First let's see your calculations and justification for your 
"near-tripling" charge.  *After* that has been settled, we can talk about 
your definition of "serious medical condition."

About paragraph three:

         What Charles Miller of the NRC may have said is irrelevant and 
immaterial, and in point of fact it is a red herring.

         You have written, "The fact remains that the number of birth 
defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War 
troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from 
the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003."

         Prove it.  And leave "Charles Miller" out of it.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com

REFERENCES

Doyle, P. et al.  2004  Miscarriage, stillbirth and congenital malformation 
in the offspring of UK veterans of the first Gulf war.  Int. J. 
Epidemiol.  33, 74-86.

Kang, H. et al.  2001  Pregnancy outcomes among US Gulf war veterans: a 
population-based survey of 30,000 veterans.  Ann. Epidemiol.  11, 504-511.